Primary Navigation

Constraints on Science and Peace

Prof. VK Tripathi is a professor of physics at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), New Delhi. He is sharing his experience at International Physics

Message 1 of 1
, Aug 11 4:53 AM

0 Attachment

Prof. VK Tripathi is a professor of physics at Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT), New Delhi. He is sharing his experience at
International Physics Conference in Taiwan. Here is his vies about
science and peace. You can directly contact him on vkt@... or send your comments on arkitectindia
yahoogroup.

For peace

Shaheen

Friends,
For the last four months I have been thinking of approaching
scientists on the issue of peace. However, more I thought of it, my
realization of constraints of science became deeper. I wish to share
some thoughts on this and seek enlightenment from you.
With affection

Vipin
Constraints on Science and Peace

V.K.Tripathi

Scientists are blessed with objectivity. They can help build a
peaceful world. Several scientists from USA and other countries,
indeed, have raised their voice against wars, including the recent
Iraq war. However, there are severe constraints on science and one
wonders whether it is possible for scientists to be effective in
averting catastrophy of wars in future.

Science has two elements. One, an unquenching quest for unraveling
mystries of nature and understanding underlying fundamental laws.
Second, the utility of science for society. Every scientist has an
element of the former, however, new and revolutionary ideas come as a
spark only once in a while and only to a few. Other scientists engage
themselves in understanding their consequences on various processes
and in developing useful devices and machines, i.e., they are driven
by element two.

Both elements require an infrastructure and support, for the
sustenance of the scientists as well as for research. These bring
science under the patronage of State and Industry and severely
curtails the freedom of scientists. Only the fundamental science
(comprising a very tiny percentage of the entire scientific effort)
is without a political agenda. All other science and technology
follows the goals set by the political power and industry.

Look at the Space Program. Soviet Union took an early lead in it. It
sent Yuri Gagarin in space who completed on earth revolution in one
and half hours and returned. The goal, set by the State, was not to
explore the space but to develop capabilities for delivering nuclear
weapons. Around that time US also launched its space program. Its
goals were also set by the State and were to develop prompt nuclear
delivery capabilities and communication capabilities to control
information and media. The goal of sending man to moon was probably
for public consumption to show that science can grow faster in
capitalist system than in a communist system. Scientists had no role
in setting goals of science in either of the two systems, nor the
goals were set by human welfare at heart.

At the moment USA is the center of scientific research. Brilliant
students from all over the world go there for higher studies and
research. They constitute nearly 50% of graduate student population in
US universities. The academic environment there is free from prejudice
of nationality, religion or race and the faculty appointments, in
private as well as public universities, are mostly based on academic
considerations rather than political interference. However, research
is strongly influenced by the state. A large fraction of research
funding comes from government agencies like National Science
Foundation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, NASA etc. It
also comes from industry. Teachers and researchers have no role in
deciding research priorities. A very substantial portion of research
money goes for defense research either directly through defense
department or indirectly through space and other departments. Since
there is tremendous pressure on university teachers to bring research
grants, as their tenure, promotion and raise in salary depend on it,
many of them, specially scientists, end up working on projects that
have some linkage with defense. This dependence curtails their
freedom to oppose war, how so ever unjust it may be. Similarly
support from industry inhibits researchers from opposing industrial
policies that may be against third world countries or environment.
There exists strong political bias among high ups in funding
agencies. During cold war years, anti-USSR hype was visible all
around. During Reagan's Star War program, a hallow was created around
it. Such things put pressure on fund seekers.

Freeing scientific research in universities from such political
pressure is necessary for creativity and freedom of scientists.
Scientists must have a say in science policy and they must uphold
human responsibility of science. Defense policy, in particular, must
be based on consensus, in consonance with the principle of national
sovereignty and freedom of all nations, and scientists must have a
say in it. It will be better if defense related research is confined
to defense laboratories. Right now major defense research in fact is
conducted at big national laboratories yet university scientists play
a very significant role in it, far bigger than the fraction of money
diverted to them.

Science in India

In developing countries like India, research is not a major activity
in most universities, hence there is not that much competition for
research funding. Political ideologies of the researchers usually do
not come in the way of gaining small projects. Big projects of course
require political contacts. Defense research in India is largely
carried at defense laboratories run by Defense Research and
Development Organization (DRDO). DRDO also funds extramural research
(the one carried out at universities, IITs, etc) but its contribution
in 1997-98 was only 3.5% to the total extramural research of the
country of Rs. 218 crore.

Departments of Science and Technology (24%), Electronics (22%), and
Biotechnology (11%), and Indian Council of Agricultural Research (9%)
had much bigger shares.

Science and education in developing nations, however, suffer from
political interference in appointments, promotions and
administration. In recent years communal indoctrination of curricula
has also emerged as a serious problem. Scientists working in
universities must resist these tendencies and evolve a people-centric
science policy. A major problem for these nations is to attract
educated and experienced scientists from abroad to their homeland.
They cannot provide them salaries, research facilities and living
standards that they enjoy in developed nations. However, with growing
aggressiveness of political leadership in powerful nations, many of
them may wish to return. Further, after the age of forty, life abroad
is not that charming as work becomes monotonous and job continuity
becomes uncertain. If home countries can offer them creative and
tenured jobs, many of them would return. Developing countries
have considerable scope to broaden their educational, technological
and research base, not as an appendage of big powers but as self
reliant nations. They can bring agriculture and small scale industry
at the center stage of research and development. Most artisans and
technicians learn technical skills through apprenticeship, by working
with ustaads. They lack in formal education and knowledge of
scientific principles. Scientists can help educate and uplift these
people.

Science oriented towards the masses seems to have the potential to
resist its misuse by the state and to usher an era of peace and
freedom.

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.